Response to Moussian

As is clear from our essay, we agree with one of the points made by Bernard Moussian: that the reviewer is the weak point of the traditional system of peer review. But training young scientists to improve their reviewing skills, while a worthy idea, would have little impact because the main problem lies elsewhere. For any one paper, a small number of reviewers are being asked to do an almost impossible double task. First, they are expected to understand a paper “better” than its authors and thereby judge its value simply by reading it. Second, they are asked to make predictions about its future impact. And they must …